Member Info for WaffenBurret

“Why would any new owners want Mooky & Co to be in charge of running it?”
Possibly because he has an amazing understanding of the business. Doh.

….and a suspenseful weekend ahead.

Bang on time! lol. Let’s hope it sticks.

It was Walt Disney who remarked in his heyday to the effect that you cannot run the movie industry with accountants in charge. He set up a board of creatives to come up with the ideas on the movie production side while he turned his attention to the Parks and the “Nine Old Men” produced among the studio’s finest features.

The same thing happened with Disney-Pixar, another golden egg. Eisner was ousted back in 2004(?) as it was felt he was degrading the business in an attempt to increase to market share in face of opposition. The creatives took on the show - J Lassiter, et al.

The movie industry, across the board, is at its best when run by passionate advocates with creative, imaginative outlooks, not two-bit accountants who look at entertainment like it was a sausage machine to be shorted. At times the industry survives on a wing and a prayer. Most of the successful bosses become deeply involved in content creation, not simply numbers.

With theatre chains it’s the the same. Quality, once again, is worth paying for and to understand that you must have a passion for film. Mooky has been in the business since he was a child, a family business since 1930s. Around the same time as Buffet began investing. I haven’t met him but strongly suspect he will be an avid movie-buff. Anyone running a film business deserves to be rewarded no matter which part of the pipeline, whether production, distribution, promotion or exhibition.
I can’t imagine Mooky not being a part of Ch7 conclusion. My only fear now is his age and who might follow. Perhaps this is his moment for retirement. Perhaps that’s why there are inheritance issues. Who knows?

There are two types of accountant (to reverse the well-worn jest) those who can add up, those who cannot - and those with some imagination. GLA.

Fed Announcement not til after London close today however.
Meanwhile Btc volume beginning to bubble again. Chance of a break out this afternoon..
Anyone here have ARBK holding?

The ‘miserable investor” approach. Nicely chosen time frame, highlighting figures for worst-case scenario. We all know that revenues resulting from increased screen numbers (Regal), improving box office and slate have yet to register in more recent figures.

Imagine this guy…

outlook for H1 timber price looks promising. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber

Wolf, there’s room for both. Binge at home but for a real treat, and an evening/night out.

Well, the movie industry has always involved “crookery” of one kind or another.
The first moguls and pioneer film-makers moved to LA , primarily to evade the taxman - a quick hop over to Mexico whenever there might be a visit from Washington.

Today some big features would not get made without an army of lawyers seeking tax incentives, national sweeteners and loopholes. The industry has always survived through larger than life, ‘racy’ types. Some call them “gangsters”. That’s the nature of showbiz. It’s where Magicians meet Suits and conjure up a bit of magic. And it’s always risky.

7B of debt is manageable with a multi-billion dollar turnover. I don’t think that is necessarily a dealbreaker. Many large media co’s were created utilising very large debt instruments. From studios to media corps.
Just need to keep the light at the end of the tunnel in view. It’s ridiculous to blame one person for not predicting Covid straight after a major asset purchase such as Regal imo. We’re now in recovery and I cannot see the golden egg being broken any time soon.

They’ll do lunch many times over before they let that happen.

Lol, could be a pound if/when there is a deal on the table - depending on the deal. And I doubt that it will happen by Friday, Wellington99.

Thanks once again for a reply, Mark. So I guess it comes down to a pool of lenders working via SYME’s platform being better at judging the prospects of a business and the future value of its assets than would be specialist lenders, investors, what have you, already operating in a given space.

It seems, from this explanation, like a digital pawn-broking shop, nothing wrong with that.. The value therefore will be, not in the tech but in the wisdom of the operating brokers. As an investor I would be looking at which investors SYME is able to attract rather than the (though important) robustness of the technology employed. (blockchain). The ability of the lenders, or “moneytizers” (is there any difference?) to be shrewd evaluators of each business would be paramount in my view.

Perhaps I’m too “old school” for the novelty of new tech, but someone still has to carry the can when it comes to rent day and the value will reside in the quality of the business attracted before the Platform could be a success. Still mulling this over. Thanks once again.

There’s an awful lot of poetry on this board - frankly, I’m waiting for the prose.

Thanks for your explanation Luckybob23.
SYME would therefore be willing to take on risks with new businesses, (businesses with short or no history) that lenders consider too risky?

Would SYME’s charges be any less for their due diligence and insurance costs?
I’m still not fully getting it though I can see that a lot of people on here are sincerely passionate about the future of this model.

I see that it it affords new business with no startup capital to initiate but that would concern me as a lender tbh

Straight question. Where is the advantage of monetising assets as opposed to a secured loan.
Are there cost benefits after charges by moneytisers and SYME?

I’m not clear on why businesses wouldn’t continue to raise funds through traditional methods.
Grateful for any thoughts.

Not yet invested.

This bulletin board is getting really confusing lol.

“is it even feasible let alone practical to watch a ten part series in a cinema?”

Oh dear, really?

Of all businesses, the entertainment industry has had to show great imagination and frequently reinvents itself. I think investors are often too narrow in their outlook and pretty miserable as a consequence.

So off to the movie theatre for an escape, a reappraisal of one’s life. Edification.
To suggest that people do not like serialised drama in the cinema is to completely miss what is in front of you. What is a franchise if not a serialisation? Bond, back to the future, avatar, lord of the rings, etc if not a serialised format. However some of us get pretty sick of the lazy film-making involved in 40 episodes of ActII that we now get on streaming TV. There is fantastic artistry and skill involved in timing a story to work within 90mins (up to 180mins in more self—indulgent times) that sits well with some of us, leaving us wanting more from the star actors AND directors for next time.

The novelty of breaking bad is wearing thin and I think people want change - again. But in any case there is room for both. The cinema brings a little magic. The old business model for studio run theatre chains use to designate 1st tier theatres for initial release. These were premium theatres in premium locations. We all have a favourite place. Quality is working again if you look at some of the smaller chains such as Everyman.

Well, that just about covers it BC lol. You could be right, or you could be right.
Either way - I think a non-decisive battle for a couple of days, some wobbles, and traders making the most of it will all be reflected in BTC/ARB prices.

I suggest you only have to look at the history of cinema In the Golden Age, studio-owned theatres exhibited movies from other studios. Sometimes subsidiary companies, they still earned their percentages. Agreements were made, deals done. The bigger hurdle might be the politics and further testing of Antitrust.

Apologies *Hexam.

Multiplexes, or not, will make little difference to the above potential business model.
I don’t really see your point Hexham.